I-69 Corridor Program Corridor Segment Committee Meeting · PDF fileI-69 Corridor Program...

23
I-69 Corridor Program Corridor Segment Committee Meeting Page 1 of 7 MEMORANDUM OF MEETING SUBJECT: Corridor Segment Committee #1 – Meeting #2 DATE: August 20, 2009 LOCATION: Maude Cobb Convention Center, Longview, Texas ATTENDING: Attendants are listed on attached sign-in sheets Meeting purpose : The meeting was held to solicit input from the Corridor Segment Committee #1 (CSC 1) on the planning and development of an I-69 Corridor Program that will address local, regional and statewide transportation issues and needs. Meeting format followed the Agenda attached to these notes. The meeting was called to order and continued as follows: Welcome/Introductions and Presentations: Thanks were given to the host of the meeting, the Longview MPO. CSC 1 Members then introduced themselves. TxDOT representatives explained that these meetings will be structured to obtain input for the I-69 planning process which will then be linked to the NEPA process. Input from each of the five CSCs will be used to ultimately develop an I-69 Corridor Program. The CSCs will also have an opportunity to provide input into the Program’s Public Involvement Plan. There is a focus to get I-69 on the ground and the solution might include multi-modal projects. The following topics were covered in the presentation: Welcome/Introductions Role of Corridor Segment Committee in Developing the I-69 Corridor Program Transportation Needs – Identification of Transportation Problems and Challenges Existing and Planned Highways in the I-69 Corridor – What is Out There Today and What is Planned Brainstorming Session #1 – Identification of Transportation Problems and Challenges: Leah Olivarri explained the process for the brainstorming session. Each committee member will be asked to describe transportation problems and challenges to consider when developing the I- 69 Corridor Program. The problems and challenges may be associated with safety, access, mobility and congestion inherent to their region. The committee members provided the following input during the brainstorming session:

Transcript of I-69 Corridor Program Corridor Segment Committee Meeting · PDF fileI-69 Corridor Program...

I-69 Corridor Program Corridor Segment Committee Meeting

Page 1 of 7

MEMORANDUM OF MEETING SUBJECT: Corridor Segment Committee #1 – Meeting #2 DATE: August 20, 2009 LOCATION: Maude Cobb Convention Center, Longview, Texas ATTENDING: Attendants are listed on attached sign-in sheets Meeting purpose: The meeting was held to solicit input from the Corridor Segment Committee #1 (CSC 1) on the planning and development of an I-69 Corridor Program that will address local, regional and statewide transportation issues and needs. Meeting format followed the Agenda attached to these notes. The meeting was called to order and continued as follows: Welcome/Introductions and Presentations: Thanks were given to the host of the meeting, the Longview MPO. CSC 1 Members then introduced themselves. TxDOT representatives explained that these meetings will be structured to obtain input for the I-69 planning process which will then be linked to the NEPA process. Input from each of the five CSCs will be used to ultimately develop an I-69 Corridor Program. The CSCs will also have an opportunity to provide input into the Program’s Public Involvement Plan. There is a focus to get I-69 on the ground and the solution might include multi-modal projects. The following topics were covered in the presentation:

• Welcome/Introductions • Role of Corridor Segment Committee in Developing the I-69 Corridor Program • Transportation Needs – Identification of Transportation Problems and Challenges • Existing and Planned Highways in the I-69 Corridor – What is Out There Today and

What is Planned Brainstorming Session #1 – Identification of Transportation Problems and Challenges: Leah Olivarri explained the process for the brainstorming session. Each committee member will be asked to describe transportation problems and challenges to consider when developing the I-69 Corridor Program. The problems and challenges may be associated with safety, access, mobility and congestion inherent to their region. The committee members provided the following input during the brainstorming session:

I-69 Corridor Program Corridor Segment Committee Meeting

Page 2 of 7

1. Committee Member (Robert Murray) – Identified transportation issues related to Bowie County such as:

i. Mix of high speed through traffic with local traffic and lack of a continuous controlled access on US 59 impedes safe mobility between Texarkana and Houston.

ii. Sections of US 59 in Texarkana have been upgraded. iii. The I-69 Corridor Program should consider a connection to I-49.

2. Committee Member (Brad McCaleb) – Identified transportation issues related to Texarkana

MPO such as: i. The existing US 59 facility in the Atlanta District has been upgraded but the mix of

passenger vehicles and increased heavy truck traffic has deteriorated highway safety along the facility.

ii. The at-grade FM 3129 Intersection with US 59 experiences safety problems. Consider grade separating the intersection.

3. Committee Member (Jerry Sparks) – Identified transportation issues related to Texarkana

such as: i. US 59 is a major north/south commerce corridor attracting heavy truck traffic,

especially logging trucks that have deteriorated safety along the facility. The logging trucks carry large loads and are often in need of repair.

ii. One known route for logging trucks is from Atlanta to Queen City to the paper mill. 4. Committee Member (James Greer) – Identified transportation issues related to Marshall

Texas Chamber of Commerce such as: i. Mix of passenger vehicles and heavy truck traffic in combination with numerous traffic

signals along US 59 through Marshall deteriorates safety and results in increased congestion.

ii. Caddo Lake and Lignite mining may obstruct highway development. 5. Committee Member (Karen Owen) – Identified transportation issues related to Longview

MPO such as: i. Lack of grade separation along US 59 for both rail and major cross routes deteriorates

highway safety along this heavily travelled corridor. ii. Mix of logging trucks and heavy truck traffic with passenger vehicles deteriorates

highway safety causing the need to consider exclusive truck lanes. iii. The narrow lanes along certain sections of US 59 and the mix of heavy truck traffic

with passenger vehicles pose a safety hazard. 6. Committee Member (David Anderson) – Identified transportation issues related to Panola

County such as: i. Mix of logging trucks and heavy truck traffic with passenger vehicles deteriorates

highway safety. ii. Panama Canal improvements will generate increased cargo activity at the Port of

Houston which will generate increased heavy truck traffic on US 59 that will deteriorate highway safety.

iii. Roads to Tenaha and Timpson have deficient shoulders which creates a safety hazard.

iv. Consider rail to alleviate congestion on US 59.

I-69 Corridor Program Corridor Segment Committee Meeting

Page 3 of 7

v. Trucks passing other trucks at slow speeds impedes mobility on US 59 and poses a safety hazard for drivers.

vi. At grade railroad crossings on US 79 in northwest Carthage and on Loop 149 in south Carthage pose a safety hazard and cause congestion.

7. Committee Member (Brad McCaleb) – Identified transportation issues such as:

i. Fast moving traffic along the US 59 corridor pose safety concerns in school zones along the route and does not meet driver expectations for such a heavy travelled corridor. School zone safety concerns were specifically identified in:

• Marshal • South of Linden • South of Texarkana

ii. At-grade crossings along US 59 increase the risk for accidents because of the mix of oncoming high speed vehicles and slow moving cross traffic. Areas with an undivided median tend to be less safe.

8. Committee Member (Charles Thomas) – Identified transportation issues related to City of

Carthage such as: i. Mix of heavy truck traffic and passenger vehicles on US 59 deteriorates highway

safety. ii. At grade rail road crossings cause serious safety hazards for travelers along US 59. iii. At grade railroad crossings on US 79 in northwest Carthage and on Loop 149 in south

Carthage pose a safety hazard and cause congestion when trains pass. Consider grade separating the rail crossings.

9. Committee Member (Karen Owen) – Identified transportation issues related to Longview

MPO such as: i. The I-69 Corridor Program should consider accessibility to event and convention

centers along US 59. Safety in these areas needs to be improved. Marshall Civic Center was specifically mentioned as an example.

10. Committee Member (Bob Barton) – Identified transportation issues related to Rusk County

such as: i. Because of the lack of turning lanes in the town of Garrison, mobility on US 59 is

impeded when traffic, intending to turn onto these local cross streets, backs up on the mainlanes as trains pass through town on the adjacent railroad facility.

ii. A 2-3 mile section of US 59 in Rusk County has experienced 10-12 fatalities, and most of the accidents included multiple vehicles. US 59 in this area has four lanes with a continuous left turn lane and shoulders.

iii. A large number of salt water trucks for gas wells access US 59 in the area. iv. The lack of shoulders on US 59 between Timpson and Tenaha creates a safety risk.

11. Committee Member (William Holley) – Identified transportation issues related to Tenaha

such as: i. Two railroads, US 84, US 96 and US 59 all intersect in Tenaha causing congestion

problems that result in a hazardous mix of trucks and cars. A Tenaha relief route should be considered.

I-69 Corridor Program Corridor Segment Committee Meeting

Page 4 of 7

ii. Portions of US 84 and US 59 lack shoulders that pose a safety risk. iii. A larger number of accidents on US 59 are weather related. iv. Major industries, including oil and timber, are present in Shelby County and contribute

to the heavy truck traffic on US 59. These industries are critical to Shelby County’s economic vitality and are dependent upon efficient access and mobility along US 59.

v. Heavy truck traffic through Tenaha poses a safety risk in the community. 12. Committee Member (Joe English) – Identified transportation issues related to Nacogdoches

County such as: i. The Loop around Nacogdoches lacks adequate capacity and frontage roads to access

existing businesses and new development along the route. He specifically mentioned access to four hotels.

ii. South Street ramp onto US 59 is congested during peak periods and storm events. iii. The current configuration of the loop (control of access and median barriers) limits

emergency vehicles crossing of the median. iv. Continued increases in heavy truck traffic, including hazmat and logging trucks, on US

59 through Nacogdoches has deteriorated safety in the community. v. US 59 experienced severe delays and bottlenecks during Hurricane Rita evacuation.

13. Committee Member (Bob Barton) – Identified transportation issues related to Rusk County

such as: i. Garrison High School is located immediately adjacent to US 59 which poses a safety

risk to students. ii. School buses, EMS, and Fire Department have difficulty accessing US 59.

14. Committee Member (Joe English) – Identified transportation issues related to Nacogdoches

County such as: i. US 59 Clover Leaf interchanges with Business 59 (South Street and North Street)

have tight radii and other safety deficiencies that have resulted in jack knifed trailers and a high accident rates.

ii. Rail facilities extending through Nacogdoches pose numerous safety concerns in the community.

15. Committee Member (Bob Barton) – Identified transportation issues related to Rusk County

such as: i. There are at grade rail crossings on three cross streets which intersect with US 59 in

Garrison that pose a safety hazard. Because of the lack of turning lanes, mobility on US 59 is impeded when traffic, intending to turn onto these local cross streets, backs up on the mainlanes as trains pass through town on the adjacent railroad facility.

16. Committee Member (William Holley) – Identified transportation issues related to Tenaha

such as: i. School zones that abut US 84 pose a safety hazard for students, such as in Joaquin

and Tenaha. ii. Connectivity to Tenaha via US 84, US 96 and US 59 needs to be integrated into the

development of an I-69 Corridor Program.

I-69 Corridor Program Corridor Segment Committee Meeting

Page 5 of 7

17. Committee Member (Bob Barton) – Identified transportation issues related to Rusk County such as:

i. EMS and fire station access onto US 59 is poor in Garrison. 18. Committee Member (Charles Thomas) – Identified transportation issues related to City of

Carthage such as: i. EMS access is poor near US 79 and US 59 in Carthage. ii. Consider improving US 79 and the connection to Henderson. iii. Consider grade separation at the intersection of FM 699 and US 59. iv. At grade railroad crossings on US 79 in northwest Carthage and on Loop 149 in south

Carthage pose a safety hazard and cause congestion when trains pass. Consider grade separating the rail crossings.

v. Accessibility to ball field on Loop 149 becomes congested during major tournaments. 19. Committee Member (David Anderson) – Identified transportation issues related to Panola

County such as: i. The Ball Park on Loop 149 south of Carthage serves as a refueling station during

hurricane evacuations. A future convention center is planned at this location and will serve a dual purpose as both a convention center and a FEMA shelter during hurricane evacuations.

ii. There is a safety concern at the intersection of US 59/FM 2517. iii. The UPRR parallels US 59/US 84 between Tenaha and Timpson. The same railroad

crosses US 59/US 84 on a bridge in northwest Timpson with only 15 foot clearance which impedes mobility for trucks on this route.

20. Committee Member (Karen Owen) – Identified transportation issues related to Longview

MPO such as: i. I-69 Corridor Program is a long term project and should accommodate future growth.

For example, as Longview and Tyler grow there may be a need for an airport in between.

21. Committee Member (Bob Barton) – Identified transportation issues related to Rusk County

such as: i. The I-69 Corridor Program needs to advance as quickly as possible to avoid areas that

will develop and attract future economic development. ii. The Program should focus on utilizing existing transportation facilities.

22. Committee Member (James Greer) – Identified transportation issues related to Marshall

Texas Chamber of Commerce such as: i. US 59 through Marshall experiences congestion problems at the US 80 intersection. ii. Flooding is a problem on US 59 at the rail road crossing 100 yards north of the US

80/US 59 intersection. iii. Numerous traffic signals on US 59 impedes through-town mobility in Marshall. iv. Consider development of a relief route around Marshall.

23. Committee Member (Jerry Sparks) – Identified transportation issues related to City of

Texarkana such as:

I-69 Corridor Program Corridor Segment Committee Meeting

Page 6 of 7

i. The I-69 Corridor Program should consider developing access to the future inland port in Texarkana.

ii. Improve access in East Texas to effectively serve Port of Houston as well as local industrial parks.

iii. Maintain access to International Paper, the largest employer in the area. iv. Integrate Land-Use Planning into the I-69 Corridor Program in an effort to effectively

locate and serve future economic and industrial development when planning the development of multimodal solutions, including Freight Shuttle and Rail.

24. Committee Members (Charles Thomas, Robert Murray and David Anderson) – indicated the following:

i. The I-69 Corridor Program should consider multimodal solutions including high speed rail, passenger rail and “Freight Shuttle”.

25. Committee Member (Karen Owen) – Identified transportation issues related to Longview

MPO such as: i. The I-69 Corridor Program needs to develop multimodal solutions to address

congestion, access, and hurricane evacuation needs (e.g. Additional AMTRAK service to coastal population centers during major storm events)

ii. The I-69 Corridor Program should consider providing passenger rail service from Marshall to Texarkana.

iii. The I-69 Corridor Program should consider preserving a corridor for commuter rail services so that smaller rural communities can access medical facilities and other services in larger cities.

26. Committee Member (William Holley) asked if TxDOT has a plan to locate and develop relief

routes. a. TxDOT responded that TxDOT has no set plans. The local communities will

participate and have input into making such decisions. 27. Committee Member (William Holley) asked if the I-69 facility is tolled, will there be free

access to local communities. a. TxDOT explained that that by law, existing free roads cannot be converted to toll

roads. Existing free access will be maintained. TxDOT also talked about lack of available federal funding and need to look at new funding tools. TxDOT explained that alternate funding tools could also include Transportation Reinvestment Zones (TRZs) and Taxing Districts (TIFs) created by Counties, Cities or Regions

Conclusion and Adjourn: 1. Doise Miers concluded the meeting.

a. Next meeting will be in October and at that time a committee chair will be elected. b. She suggested the possibility of a Yahoo Group for email communication and there

were no objections. c. Those who wish to be a chair candidate will need to submit bios. d. Punched packets of materials will be given at future meetings so there is no need to

bring notebooks to every meeting unless committee members wish to do so.

I-69 Corridor Program Corridor Segment Committee Meeting

Page 7 of 7

e. Committee members should review their contact information and provide updates. f. She requested volunteers for hosting future meetings.

The meeting was then adjourned. Attachments:

1. Agenda 2. Sign-In Sheet 3. Handouts

Meeting Staff included: Ed Pensock-TxDOT/TTA, Doug Booher-TxDOT/TTA, Doise Miers-TxDOT/GPA, Amy Loos-TxDOT/GPA, Leah Olivarri-Consultant, Joe Shalkowski-Consultant, Tina Brown-Consultant, Ariel Carmona-Consultant, Michael Sexton-Consultant

I-69 Corridor Segment Committee #1 August 20, 2009

1:30 pm to 4:00 pm

Welcome/Introductions Leah Olivarri Facilitator Role of Corridor Segment Committee in Ed Pensock, P.E. Developing the I-69 Corridor Program Director, Corridor Systems TxDOT - TTA TxDOT Presentation

Transportation Needs – Identification of Doug Booher Transportation Problems and Challenges Environmental Manager

Existing and Planned Highways TxDOT - TTA in the I-69 Corridor – What is Out There Today and What is Planned

Brainstorming Session Leah Olivarri

Identification of Transportation Problems and Facilitator Challenges to Consider in Developing the I-69 Corridor Program

What Highways and Other Transportation Facilities Should be Considered in Developing the I-69 Corridor Program

Committee Organization and Wrap Up Doise Miers Legislative Analyst TxDOT - Government and Public Affairs Division (GPA) Adjourn Leah Olivarri Facilitator

Corridor Segment Committee 1 Meeting #2 

 August 20, 2009 

 Longview, Texas 

I-69 Corridor Segment Committee #1 August 20, 2009

1:30 pm to 4:00 pm

Welcome/Introductions Leah Olivarri Facilitator Role of Corridor Segment Committee in Ed Pensock, P.E. Developing the I-69 Corridor Program Director, Corridor Systems TxDOT - TTA TxDOT Presentation

Transportation Needs – Identification of Doug Booher Transportation Problems and Challenges Environmental Manager

Existing and Planned Highways TxDOT - TTA in the I-69 Corridor – What is Out There Today and What is Planned

Brainstorming Session Leah Olivarri

Identification of Transportation Problems and Facilitator Challenges to Consider in Developing the I-69 Corridor Program

What Highways and Other Transportation Facilities Should be Considered in Developing the I-69 Corridor Program

Committee Organization and Wrap Up Doise Miers Legislative Analyst TxDOT - Government and Public Affairs Division (GPA) Adjourn Leah Olivarri Facilitator

Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division

Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division

I-69 Corridor Segment Committee

August 20, 2009Longview, Texas

Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division

Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division

Welcome / Introductions

Leah Olivarri - Facilitator

Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division

Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division

Role of Corridor Segment Committee in Developing the

I-69 Corridor Program

Ed Pensock, P.E.Director, Corridor Systems

Texas Turnpike Authority Division

Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division

Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division

Role of Corridor Segment Committee in Developing the I-69 Corridor Program

• How do we make this an Interstate facility?• When do we upgrade existing roadways?• When do we develop new relief routes?• What roadways connect to the facility?• How do we pay for these facilities?

Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division

Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division

Role of Corridor Segment Committee in Developing the I-69 Corridor Program

• Identify Transportation Problems and Challenges

• Identify What Highways and Other Transportation Facilities Should be Considered in Developing the I-69 Corridor Program

• Update Inventory of Planning Features

Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division

Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division

• Establish Program Goals and Objectives• Refine the Public Involvement Plan• Determine the Types of Transportation

Improvements Needed

Role of Corridor Segment Committee in Developing the

I-69 Corridor Program (Contd.)

Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division

Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division

Role of Corridor Segment Committee in Developing the

I-69 Corridor Program (Contd.)

• Set Criteria for Determining the Need to Consider Relief Routes

• Determine the Criteria to use in Defining and Prioritizing Individual Projects for the I-69 Corridor Program

Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division

Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division

• Develop Program Funding Criteria• Review I-69 Corridor Program of Projects

Role of Corridor Segment Committee in Developing the

I-69 Corridor Program (Contd.)

Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division

Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division

Transportation Needs – Identification of Transportation

Problems and Challenges

Doug BooherEnvironmental Manager

Texas Turnpike Authority Division

Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division

Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division

Project Need – WHY?

• The project need defines the current and future transportation problems and challenges to be addressed.

• It answers the questions… WHY a project should be developed, WHY it’s necessary to impact environmental resources, and WHYthe expenditure of funds is necessary and worthwhile.

Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division

Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division

Project Need –Problem Definition Principles

• It describes the transportation problems and challenges that an area, transportation corridor, or specific network faces

• It does NOT identify solutions to resolve a problem

• It is supported by data that helps to define the problem(s)

Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division

Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division

Existing and Planned Highways in the I-69 Corridor – What is Out There Today and What is Planned

Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division

Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division

Interstate Design Standards

• Controlled Access• Grade Separated Interchanges• On- and Off-Ramps to the Mainlanes• No driveways onto the Mainlanes

Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division

Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division

Interstate Design Standards (Contd.)

• Center Median• Minimum Lane and Shoulder Widths• Designed for Higher Speeds

Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division

Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division

Existing Controlled Access Highways – I-69 Corridor

Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division

Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division

Existing and Planned Controlled Access Highways – I-69 Corridor

Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division

Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division

Existing and Planned Controlled Access Highways – Segment 1

Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division

Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division

Brainstorming Session

Leah Olivarri - Facilitator

Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division

Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division

Brainstorming Session – Part 1

• Identification of Transportation Problems and Challenges to Consider in Developing the I-69 Corridor Program

Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division

Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division

Brainstorming Session – Part 2

• What Highways and Other Transportation Facilities Should be Considered in Developing the I-69 Corridor Program

Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division

Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division

Doise MiersLegislative Analyst

Government and Public Affairs Division, TxDOT

Committee Organization and Wrap Up

Webb

Hill

Duval

Frio

Harris

Bell

Kerr

Starr

Polk

Clay

Ellis

Uvalde

Bee

Leon

Bexar

Erath

Jack

Kenedy

Zavala

Dimmit

Cass

Tyler

Hunt

La Salle

Wise

Rusk

Kimble

Medina

Llano

LibertyLee

Milam

Travis

Knox

Mills

Brazoria

Smith

Falls

Collin

Burnet

Zapata

Real

Coryell

Bowie

Brown

Houston

Taylor

Lamar

Dallas

Jasper

Young

Coleman

Baylor

Archer

Mason

Cooke

Parker

Navarro

Brooks

Hardin

DeWitt

Lavaca

Hays

Goliad

Denton

Atascosa

Bosque

Fannin

Wharton

Concho

Fayette

Tarrant

Haskell

Newton

Gillespie

Live Oak

Shelby

McMullen

Jim Hogg

Foard

Wilson

Victoria

Wood

Menard

Panola

Trinity

Bastrop

Grayson

San Saba

Walker

Gonzales

Anderson

Kleberg

Grimes

Cherokee

Harrison

Colorado

Eastland

Cameron

Red River

Nueces

Karnes

Austin

Williamson

Blanco

Jackson

McCulloch

Callahan

McLennan

Refugio

Matagorda

Angelina

Hopkins

Stephens

Palo Pinto

Hamilton

Bandera

Montague

JimWells

Limestone

Kaufman

Fort Bend

Comal

Kendall

Comanche

Freestone

Titus

Johnson

Henderson

Montgomery

Willacy

Jefferson

Brazos

Robertson

Van Zandt

Sabine

Hood

Upshur

Waller

Shackelford

Burleson

Nacogdoches

Lampasas

Throckmorton

Guadalupe

Caldwell

Marion

Chambers

San Patricio

Madison

San Jacinto

Delta

Washington Orange

Calhoun

Rains

Gregg

Morris

San Augustine

Franklin

Camp

Somervell

Galveston

Aransas

Rockwall

Gu adalupe Rive r

Lavaca R iver

Colorado Rive r

Cypress Creek

Sabine R iver

Trinity RiverNeches River

San Jacin to River

Brazos River

Frio R iver

San Anto nio River

A n g e l i n a R i v e r

Dallas

San Antonio

Austin

ArlingtonFort Worth

Waco

Plano

Irving

Garland

Abilene

Mesquite

Pasadena

Beaumont

Tyler

Bryan

Denton

Killeen

Baytown

Longview

Galveston

RichardsonCarrollton

PortArthur

Wichita Falls

Grand Prairie

CollegeStation

Paris

NuevoLaredo

Orange

Jasper

Conroe

Lufkin

Athens

Freeport

Crockett

Carthage

Palestine

Nacogdoches

Jacksonville

Wills PointGrand Saline Mineola

Commerce

Victoria

Houston Î

Î

Î

Î

Î

Î

Î

Î

o

o

o

o

oo

o

o

o

o

HOUSTONINTER-

CONTINENTALAIRPORT

LakeTexana

CaddoLake

LakeKemp

Tamaulipas

Rio Gra nde

£¤84

Æÿ511

Æÿ99

Æÿ99

Sabine

Caddo

Bossier

De Soto

Cameron

Webster

Vernon

Calcasieu

Beauregard

Red River

Bienville

§̈¦35

§̈¦37

§̈¦35

§̈¦37

§̈¦35

§̈¦10

§̈¦45

§̈¦10

§̈¦10

§̈¦35

§̈¦10

§̈¦49

§̈¦20§̈¦20

§̈¦45

§̈¦45

§̈¦35

§̈¦20

§̈¦20 §̈¦20

§̈¦35§̈¦30

§̈¦30

§̈¦410

§̈¦610

§̈¦820§̈¦635

Æÿ5

£¤83

£¤83

£¤77

£¤83

£¤59

£¤77

£¤77

£¤87

£¤59

£¤77

£¤59

£¤59

£¤83

£¤83

£¤83

£¤90

£¤57

£¤90

£¤87£¤77

£¤87

£¤87

£¤90£¤90

£¤90

£¤59

£¤77£¤90

£¤90

£¤87£¤83

£¤87

£¤83

£¤87

£¤84

£¤79

£¤84

£¤79

£¤77

£¤77£¤79

£¤59

£¤59

£¤69

£¤69 £¤96

£¤96

£¤79

£¤96

£¤59

£¤59

£¤84£¤79

£¤84

£¤84

£¤77 £¤69

£¤67

£¤81£¤67

£¤67 £¤84

£¤67

£¤84

£¤84£¤83

£¤83

£¤82

£¤80

£¤67

£¤59

£¤59£¤71

£¤82

£¤80

£¤75

£¤69

£¤69

£¤281

£¤281

£¤281

£¤181

£¤181

£¤281

£¤281

£¤181

£¤183

£¤290

£¤290

£¤183

£¤290

£¤290

£¤281

£¤290

£¤377

£¤283 £¤377

£¤190

£¤281

£¤183

£¤183

£¤183

£¤190

£¤190

£¤190

£¤287

£¤287£¤190

£¤171

£¤259

£¤287

£¤175

£¤287

£¤377

£¤281

£¤377

£¤377

£¤281

£¤183£¤283

£¤277

£¤277

£¤180

£¤281£¤180

£¤287

£¤380 £¤380

£¤281£¤283 £¤287

£¤283£¤183

£¤183

£¤377

£¤259

£¤271

£¤380

£¤271

Æÿ6

Æÿ6

Æÿ6

Æÿ6

Æÿ7

Æÿ6

Æÿ7

Æÿ7

Æÿ6

Æÿ7Æÿ6

Æÿ6

Æÿ6

Æÿ6

Æÿ6

Æÿ3

Æÿ2Æÿ1

Æÿ85

Æÿ73

Æÿ48

Æÿ16

Æÿ16

Æÿ44

Æÿ44

Æÿ35

Æÿ35

Æÿ35

Æÿ72

Æÿ16

Æÿ72Æÿ97

Æÿ85

Æÿ55

Æÿ16

Æÿ97

Æÿ97

Æÿ72

Æÿ80

Æÿ80

Æÿ97

Æÿ71

Æÿ71

Æÿ60

Æÿ35

Æÿ60

Æÿ36

Æÿ87

Æÿ87

Æÿ12

Æÿ87

Æÿ36

Æÿ80Æÿ95

Æÿ71

Æÿ21Æÿ71

Æÿ21

Æÿ16 Æÿ46

Æÿ16

Æÿ46

Æÿ27

Æÿ41Æÿ27

Æÿ29

Æÿ71

Æÿ71

Æÿ16

Æÿ16

Æÿ29

Æÿ95

Æÿ95

Æÿ36

Æÿ36

Æÿ53

Æÿ14

Æÿ14

Æÿ90

Æÿ30Æÿ30

Æÿ75

Æÿ21

Æÿ19

Æÿ19

Æÿ94

Æÿ94

Æÿ62

Æÿ63

Æÿ63

Æÿ87

Æÿ21

Æÿ21

Æÿ21

Æÿ87

Æÿ43

Æÿ31

Æÿ64

Æÿ19

Æÿ31

Æÿ31

Æÿ64

Æÿ34

Æÿ34

Æÿ22

Æÿ22Æÿ16

Æÿ36

Æÿ36

Æÿ25

Æÿ79

Æÿ79

Æÿ16

Æÿ16

Æÿ16

Æÿ67

Æÿ16

Æÿ59

Æÿ59

Æÿ66

Æÿ77

Æÿ49

Æÿ43

Æÿ29Æÿ77

Æÿ49

Æÿ78

Æÿ37

Æÿ19

Æÿ34

Æÿ11Æÿ24

Æÿ78

Æÿ19Æÿ24

Æÿ37

Æÿ100

Æÿ336

Æÿ186

Æÿ339

Æÿ285Æÿ285

Æÿ359

Æÿ359

Æÿ316

Æÿ239

Æÿ185

Æÿ185

Æÿ359

Æÿ202

Æÿ239

Æÿ127

Æÿ173 Æÿ123

Æÿ111

Æÿ111

Æÿ172

Æÿ288

Æÿ146

Æÿ124

Æÿ146

Æÿ321Æÿ242

Æÿ249

Æÿ159Æÿ237

Æÿ105

Æÿ304

Æÿ304

Æÿ142

Æÿ123Æÿ173

Æÿ138

Æÿ195

Æÿ195

Æÿ317

Æÿ317

Æÿ320

Æÿ164Æÿ164

Æÿ105

Æÿ105

Æÿ150

Æÿ156

Æÿ150

Æÿ327

Æÿ103

Æÿ103

Æÿ147

Æÿ149

Æÿ294

Æÿ315

Æÿ204

Æÿ135

Æÿ135

Æÿ110Æÿ155

Æÿ294

Æÿ155Æÿ171

Æÿ205

Æÿ144

Æÿ171

Æÿ171

Æÿ174

Æÿ174

Æÿ144

Æÿ220

Æÿ108

Æÿ112

Æÿ279Æÿ206

Æÿ206

Æÿ351

Æÿ222

Æÿ251

Æÿ114

Æÿ254Æÿ377

Æÿ199 Æÿ114

Æÿ101Æÿ114

Æÿ148

Æÿ289

Æÿ243

Æÿ160

Æÿ154Æÿ182

Æÿ154

Æÿ224

Æÿ121

§̈¦35E

§̈¦35W

§̈¦35E§̈¦35W

M E X I C OM E X I C O

50 40 8020

Miles

A R K A N S A SA R K A N S A S

L O U I S I A N AL O U I S I A N A

I-69 Corridor Study

Existing Controlled A

ccess Highw

ays

Legend

T:\GIS_Data_Sets\TX_Corridor_Wide_Data\Corridors\Upgradeable\Potential_I-69_Facilities_ControlofAccess_11x17.mxd

Corpus Christi

George West

GULFOF

MEXICO

Hidalgo

Highway - State Marked

Highway - US Marked

Highway - Interstate

Urban Area

County/Parish

Æÿ

£¤

§̈¦

Brownsville

Mc Allen

Laredo

Texarkana

Shreveport

7/27/2009

I-69 National Corridor RecommendedPreferred Alternative (Louisiana)

1 Inch = 40 Miles

Freer

Robstown

Ellington Field

Hobby Airport

George Bush International Airport

Port of Houston

Commercial Airport

Primary Deep Draft Seaport

Landport

Port of Corpus Christi

Port Lavaca/Point Comfort

Port of Victoria

Corpus Christi International

Port of Freeport

Port of Galveston

Port of Texas City

Port of Brownsville

Brownsville/South Padre International

Rio Grande Valley International

McAllen Miller International

Laredo International

Port of Laredo

Shreveport Regional Airport

Texarkana Regional Airport

Existing Controlled Access*

*The information shown here was derived andinterpreted from the most recently available data.

Î

Î

Î

Î

Î

Î

Î

Î

o

o

o

o

oo

o

o

o

o

o

Webb

Hill

Duval

Frio

Harris

Bell

Kerr

Starr

Polk

Clay

Edwards

Ellis

Uvalde

Bee

Leon

Bexar

King

Erath

Jack

Kinney

Kenedy

Zavala

Dimmit

Cass

Tyler

Hunt

La Salle

Wise

Rusk

Kimble

Medina

Llano

LibertyLee

Milam

Travis

Knox

Mills

Brazoria

Smith

Falls

Collin

Jones

Nolan

Burnet

Cottle

Zapata

Real

Coryell

Bowie

Brown

Houston

Taylor

Lamar

Dallas

Fisher

Maverick

Jasper

Young

Coleman

Baylor

Archer

Mason

Cooke

Parker

Navarro

Brooks

Hardin

Tom Green

DeWitt

Lavaca

Hays

Goliad

Denton

Atascosa

Bosque

Fannin

Wharton

Concho

Runnels

Fayette

Tarrant

Haskell

Newton

Gillespie

Live Oak

Shelby

McMullen

Jim Hogg

Foard

Wilson

Victoria

Wood

Menard

Panola

Trinity

Bastrop

Grayson

San Saba

Walker

Gonzales

Anderson

Kleberg

Grimes

Cherokee

Harrison

Colorado

Eastland

Cameron

Red River

Nueces

Karnes

Austin

Williamson

Blanco

Jackson

McCulloch

Wilbarger

Callahan

McLennan

Refugio

Matagorda

Angelina

Hopkins

Stephens

Palo Pinto

Stonewall

Hamilton

Bandera

Montague

JimWells

Limestone

Kaufman

Fort Bend

Comal

Kendall

Comanche

Freestone

Titus

Johnson

Henderson

Montgomery

Willacy

Jefferson

Brazos

Wichita

Robertson

Van Zandt

Sabine

Hood

Upshur

Waller

Shackelford

Burleson

Nacogdoches

Lampasas

Hardeman

Throckmorton

Guadalupe

Caldwell

Marion

Chambers

San Patricio

Madison

San Jacinto

Delta

Washington Orange

Calhoun

Rains

Gregg

Morris

San Augustine

Franklin

Camp

Somervell

Galveston

Aransas

Rockwall

Gu adalupe Rive r

Lavaca R iver

Colorado Rive r

Cypress Creek

Sabine R iver

Trinity RiverNeches River

San Jacin to River

Brazos River

Frio R iver

San Anto nio River

A n g e l i n a R i v e r

Dallas

San Antonio

Austin

ArlingtonFort Worth

Waco

Plano

Irving

Garland

Abilene

Mesquite

Pasadena

Beaumont

Tyler

Bryan

Denton

Killeen

Baytown

Longview

Galveston

San Angelo

RichardsonCarrollton

PortArthur

Wichita Falls

Grand Prairie

CollegeStation

Roby

Paris

NuevoLaredo

Orange

Jasper

Conroe

Lufkin

Athens

Freeport

Crockett

Carthage

Ardmore

Palestine

Nacogdoches

Jacksonville

Wills PointGrand Saline Mineola

Commerce

Victoria

Houston

LakeTexana

CaddoLake

LakeKemp

Tamaulipas

Rio Gra nde

£¤84

Æÿ511

Æÿ99

Æÿ99

Sabine

Caddo

Bossier

De Soto

Cameron

Webster

Vernon

Calcasieu

Beauregard

Red River

Bienville

§̈¦35

§̈¦37

§̈¦35

§̈¦37

§̈¦35

§̈¦10

§̈¦45

§̈¦10

§̈¦10

§̈¦35

§̈¦10

§̈¦49

§̈¦20§̈¦20

§̈¦45

§̈¦45

§̈¦35

§̈¦20

§̈¦20 §̈¦20

§̈¦35§̈¦30

§̈¦30

§̈¦410

§̈¦610

§̈¦820§̈¦635

Æÿ5

£¤83

£¤83

£¤77

£¤83

£¤59

£¤77

£¤77

£¤87

£¤59

£¤77

£¤59

£¤59

£¤83

£¤83

£¤83

£¤90

£¤57

£¤90

£¤87£¤77

£¤87

£¤87

£¤90£¤90

£¤90

£¤59

£¤77£¤90

£¤90

£¤87£¤83

£¤87

£¤83

£¤87

£¤84

£¤79

£¤84

£¤79

£¤77

£¤77£¤79

£¤59

£¤59

£¤69

£¤69 £¤96

£¤96

£¤79

£¤96

£¤59

£¤59

£¤84£¤79

£¤84

£¤84

£¤77 £¤69

£¤67

£¤81£¤67

£¤67 £¤84

£¤67

£¤84

£¤84£¤83

£¤83

£¤82

£¤80

£¤67

£¤59

£¤59£¤71

£¤82

£¤80

£¤75

£¤69

£¤69

£¤281

£¤281

£¤281

£¤181

£¤181

£¤281

£¤281

£¤181

£¤183

£¤290

£¤290

£¤183

£¤290

£¤290

£¤281

£¤290

£¤377

£¤283 £¤377

£¤190

£¤281

£¤183

£¤183

£¤183

£¤190

£¤190

£¤190

£¤287

£¤287£¤190

£¤171

£¤259

£¤287

£¤175

£¤287

£¤377

£¤281

£¤377

£¤377

£¤281

£¤183£¤283

£¤277

£¤277

£¤180

£¤281£¤180

£¤287

£¤380 £¤380

£¤281£¤283 £¤287

£¤283£¤183

£¤183

£¤377

£¤259

£¤271

£¤380

£¤271

Æÿ6

Æÿ6

Æÿ6

Æÿ6

Æÿ7

Æÿ6

Æÿ7

Æÿ7

Æÿ6

Æÿ7Æÿ6

Æÿ6

Æÿ6

Æÿ6

Æÿ6

Æÿ3

Æÿ2Æÿ1

Æÿ85

Æÿ73

Æÿ48

Æÿ16

Æÿ16

Æÿ44

Æÿ44

Æÿ35

Æÿ35

Æÿ35

Æÿ72

Æÿ16

Æÿ72Æÿ97

Æÿ85

Æÿ55

Æÿ16

Æÿ97

Æÿ97

Æÿ72

Æÿ80

Æÿ80

Æÿ97

Æÿ71

Æÿ71

Æÿ60

Æÿ35

Æÿ60

Æÿ36

Æÿ87

Æÿ87

Æÿ12

Æÿ87

Æÿ36

Æÿ80Æÿ95

Æÿ71

Æÿ21Æÿ71

Æÿ21

Æÿ16 Æÿ46

Æÿ16

Æÿ46

Æÿ27

Æÿ41Æÿ27

Æÿ29

Æÿ71

Æÿ71

Æÿ16

Æÿ16

Æÿ29

Æÿ95

Æÿ95

Æÿ36

Æÿ36

Æÿ53

Æÿ14

Æÿ14

Æÿ90

Æÿ30Æÿ30

Æÿ75

Æÿ21

Æÿ19

Æÿ19

Æÿ94

Æÿ94

Æÿ62

Æÿ63

Æÿ63

Æÿ87

Æÿ21

Æÿ21

Æÿ21

Æÿ87

Æÿ43

Æÿ31

Æÿ64

Æÿ19

Æÿ31

Æÿ31

Æÿ64

Æÿ34

Æÿ34

Æÿ22

Æÿ22Æÿ16

Æÿ36

Æÿ36

Æÿ25

Æÿ79

Æÿ79

Æÿ16

Æÿ16

Æÿ16

Æÿ67

Æÿ16

Æÿ59

Æÿ59

Æÿ66

Æÿ77

Æÿ49

Æÿ43

Æÿ29Æÿ77

Æÿ49

Æÿ78

Æÿ37

Æÿ19

Æÿ34

Æÿ11Æÿ24

Æÿ78

Æÿ19Æÿ24

Æÿ37

Æÿ100

Æÿ336

Æÿ186

Æÿ339

Æÿ285Æÿ285

Æÿ359

Æÿ359

Æÿ316

Æÿ239

Æÿ185

Æÿ185

Æÿ359

Æÿ202

Æÿ239

Æÿ127

Æÿ173 Æÿ123

Æÿ111

Æÿ111

Æÿ172

Æÿ288

Æÿ146

Æÿ124

Æÿ146

Æÿ321Æÿ242

Æÿ249

Æÿ159Æÿ237

Æÿ105

Æÿ304

Æÿ304

Æÿ142

Æÿ123Æÿ173

Æÿ138

Æÿ195

Æÿ195

Æÿ317

Æÿ317

Æÿ320

Æÿ164Æÿ164

Æÿ105

Æÿ105

Æÿ150

Æÿ156

Æÿ150

Æÿ327

Æÿ103

Æÿ103

Æÿ147

Æÿ149

Æÿ294

Æÿ315

Æÿ204

Æÿ135

Æÿ135

Æÿ110Æÿ155

Æÿ294

Æÿ155Æÿ171

Æÿ205

Æÿ144

Æÿ171

Æÿ171

Æÿ174

Æÿ174

Æÿ144

Æÿ220

Æÿ108

Æÿ112

Æÿ279Æÿ206

Æÿ206

Æÿ351

Æÿ222

Æÿ251

Æÿ114

Æÿ254Æÿ377

Æÿ199 Æÿ114

Æÿ101Æÿ114

Æÿ148

Æÿ289

Æÿ243

Æÿ160

Æÿ154Æÿ182

Æÿ154

Æÿ224

Æÿ121

§̈¦35E

§̈¦35W

§̈¦35E§̈¦35W

M E X I C OM E X I C O

50 40 8020

Miles

A R K A N S A SA R K A N S A S

L O U I S I A N AL O U I S I A N A

I-69 Corridor Study

Existing and Planned Controlled A

ccess Highw

ays

Legend

T:\GIS_Data_Sets\TX_Corridor_Wide_Data\Corridors\Upgradeable\Potential_I-69_Facilities_Existing_CA_and_STIP_11x17.mxd

Corpus Christi

George West

GULFOF

MEXICO

Hidalgo

Highway - State Marked

Highway - US Marked

Highway - Interstate

Urban Area

County/Parish

Æÿ

£¤

§̈¦

Brownsville

Mc Allen

Laredo

Texarkana

Shreveport

8/10/2009

I-69 National Corridor RecommendedPreferred Alternative (Louisiana)

1 Inch = 40 Miles

Freer

Robstown

Ellington Field

Hobby Airport

George Bush International Airport

Port of Houston

Port of Corpus Christi

Port Lavaca/Point Comfort

Port of Victoria

Corpus Christi International

Port of Freeport

Port of GalvestonPort of Texas City

Port of Brownsville

Brownsville/South Padre International

Rio Grande Valley International

McAllen Miller International

Laredo International

Port of Laredo

Shreveport Regional Airport

Texarkana Regional Airport

Planned Contolled Access

Existing Controlled Access*SH 99 CorridorSH 99 Study Area

Upgrade to freeway facility with4-lane divided overpass at UP RR.From: SH 150To: South of UP RR

Construct grade separationinterchange and close crossoversFrom: 1 mi. north of FM 2914To: 1 mi. south of FM 2914

Construct 4-lane SH 99 Seg. G-2From: Harris C/LTo: US 59

Construct 4-lane SH 99From: I-45To: Montgomery C/L

Widen SH 99 (I-2) to 4-lane with two 2-lanefrontage roads and interchangesFrom: BUS 146-ETo: Chambers C/L

Construct 4-lane SH 99 Seg. BFrom: I-45 STo: SH 288

Construct 4-lane SH 99 Seg. CFrom: SH 288To: US 59

Widen SH 99 (I-2) to 4-lane with two 2 lanefrontage roads and interchangesFrom: Harris C/LTo: SH 99 @ FM 1405

Construct 4-lane SH 99 Seg. F-2From: SH 249To: I-45

Construct 4-lane SH 99 Seg.EFrom: Franz RoadTo: US 290

Construct six SH 99direct connectors at I-10

Construct 4-lane SH 99 Seg. F-2From: SH 249To: I-45

Construct two US 59 gradeseparation interchanges

Constuct US 59 grade separationat intersection of FM 3129

Construct new location loop

Construct 4-lane US 281From: BUS 281 NTo BUS 281 S

Construct 4-lane US 281From: 0.9 mi. S of FM 3066To: BUS 281 S

Construct 4-lane US 281From: BUS 281 NTo: Brooks C/L

Construct US 281 diamond interchange.From: 0.95 mi. N of FM 2508To: 0.21 mi. S of CR 449

Construct 4-lanes US 281 new location.From: 3.0 mi. N of FM 716To: 1.0 mi. S of FM 1538

Construct new interchangeUS 59 and I-37Construct RR grade separation structure and approaches.

From: BUS 59To: San Antonio St.

*The information shown here was derived andinterpreted from the most recently available data.

Commercial Airport

Primary Deep Draft Seaport

Landport

o

o

Cass

Rusk

Smith

Bowie

Lamar

Newton

Shelby

Wood

Panola

Trinity

AndersonCherokee

Harrison

Red River

Angelina

Hopkins

Titus

Henderson

Van Zandt

Sabine

Upshur

Nacogdoches

Marion

Madison

Delta

Rains

Gregg

Morris

San Augustine

Franklin

Camp

Tyler

Longview Shreveport

Hope

Rusk

Emory

Paris

Benton

Newton

Jasper

Gilmer

Cooper

Center

Linden

Canton

New Boston

Athens

Idabel

Ashdown

Quitman

Kilgore

Groveton

Crockett

Marshall

Carthage

Mansfield

Texarkana

Pittsburg

Ben Lomond

Jefferson

Henderson

Lewisville

Clarksville

Centerville

Mount Vernon

Jacksonville

Daingerfield

Madisonville

San Augustine

Mount Pleasant

Sulphur Springs

Mineola

VanHallsville

Lindale

Winona

BullardTroup

Gladewater

Overton

Diboll

Grapeland

Trinity

Bogata

Detroit

Atlanta

Corrigan

Hughes Springs

Lone Star Avinger

De KalbHooks

Leary

Redwater

Maud

NaplesMarietta

DouglassvilleOmaha BloomburgQueen City

Uncertain

Ore City

Nesbitt

LakeportEaston

ScottsvilleWaskom

Tatum

Beckville

Gary

Stonewall

Bradley

Vivian

New London

JoaquinLogansportTenaha

Huxley

Chireno

Alto

Wells

Hudson

Burke

HuntingtonBroaddus

Pineland

BrowndellZavalla

Seven Oaks

Chester Colmesneil

Onalaska

Lovelady

Riverside

Midway

Appleby

Garrison

Timpson

Moscow

Palestine

Nacogdoches

Lufkin

Grand Saline

Richland-ChambersReservoir

LakePalestine

CaddoLake

Toledo Bend Reservoir

Davy Crocket tNat ion al Fore st

CrossLake

Toledo BendReservoir

LakeBistineau

ClearLake

WallaceLake

R e d R i v e r

L O U I S I A N A

Sandy Cree k

Piney Creek

Neches River

T E X A S

A R K A N S A S

Polk

Houston

Tyler

Trinity

Walker

Angelina

Leon

San Jacinto

Nacogdoches

Madison

Anderson

Cherokee

SanAugustine

Freestone

JasperÅ1280

Å831

Å1119

Å1511

Å3154

Å977

Å579

Å3151 Å3317

Caddo

De Soto

Bossier

Sabine

Miller

Little River

Lafayette

Hempstead

HowardSevier

§̈¦20

§̈¦30

§̈¦30

£¤84

£¤59

£¤69

£¤96

£¤79

£¤96

£¤59

£¤59

£¤84

£¤79

£¤84

£¤69

£¤80

£¤67

£¤59

£¤82

£¤59

£¤71

£¤71

£¤82

£¤171

£¤171

£¤259

£¤175

£¤259

£¤271

£¤259

£¤271

£¤271

Æÿ5

Æÿ1 Æÿ3

Æÿ7

Æÿ7

Æÿ5

Æÿ8

Æÿ3

Æÿ2Æÿ1

Æÿ8

Æÿ19

Æÿ94

Æÿ94

Æÿ63

Æÿ63

Æÿ21

Æÿ21

Æÿ21

Æÿ87

Æÿ43

Æÿ31

Æÿ64

Æÿ19

Æÿ31

Æÿ64

Æÿ77

Æÿ49

Æÿ43

Æÿ77

Æÿ49

Æÿ37Æÿ87

Æÿ41 Æÿ32

Æÿ29

Æÿ37

Æÿ19

Æÿ37

Æÿ191

Æÿ764

Æÿ169Æÿ525

Æÿ103

Æÿ103

Æÿ147

Æÿ149

Æÿ154

Æÿ294

Æÿ315

Æÿ204

Æÿ135

Æÿ135

Æÿ110Æÿ155

Æÿ294

Æÿ155

Æÿ155

Æÿ154Æÿ182

Æÿ154

T:\SegmentCommitteeMeetings\Segment1\I-69_Segment1_11x17.mxd 8/17/2009

B r a

z o s

R i v e

r

Public Lands

Brenham

Railroads

Other Existing

Kansas City Southern (KCS)

Abandoned Rail

Highway - State MarkedHighway - US MarkedHighway - Interstate

Urban Area

§̈¦

£¤

Æÿ

County

Union Pacific (UP)

Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF)

Commercial Airporto

Existing Controlled Access

Planned Controlled Access

Segment 1

Existing and Planned ControlledAccess Highways

50 12 246

Miles

1 Inch = 12 Miles

Kansas City Southern (KCS) Inactive

I-69 National Corridor RecommendedPreferred Alternative (Louisiana)